@Sal"Utah is in step with God. He is showing his displeasure with the
growing majority, as manifested in bizarre weather patterns not seen in a
century throughout the nation. It will only increase as more and more people
abandon His commandments."

Remember, when God's commandments
are broken, he will act like a 5 year old, throw a tantrum and cause severe
weather patterns until he gets his way...

Gov. Herbert's comments are perverse in nature and insulting to those who
have served to uphold the Constitution of the United States to provide equality
for all regardless of race, age, sexual orientation, physical or psychological
disorders. Comments like his make him appear unfit for public service.

Thew "will of the people" was decided by a vote of the people of Utah to
define marriage as being between a man and a woman. People have the right to
make their laws. Minorities do not have special rights as minorities.
Everyone, minority and majority has individual rights. People have the right to
vote for their laws. If the rights of citizens to vote on their laws are taken
away then they are being disenfranchised. Think apartheid. Think violations
of human rights.

No one is being discriminated against. The laws do
not prevent gay people from getting married. Everyone has to marry someone of
the opposite gender, straight or gay. If two bisexuals of the opposite gender
want to marry, I don't think anyone would object and most would wish them a
happy life and throw rice (which is based on a wish for fertility), so where is
the discrimination?

I read about a delusional woman who got married
to a bridge in France. People like that are called Objectophiles. If we are
not going to allow Objectophiles to marry who (what?) they love then isn't
that discriminatory and therefore against the 14th amendment?

As long as government controls marriage via regulation, we will have differences
of opinion, strife, and contention. It seems to me the best solution to to
remove government from regulation of marriage and let the bureaucrats focus on
civil liberties. Let marriage be defined however they will by social groups, and
let people join what ever social groups they wish.

He is right to defend the will of the people. He is also right to say that we
should be respectful of homosexual people. Same sex marriage is not a
constitutional right, however, unless you use very creative liberal activist
interpretation of the 14th amendment. The Supreme Court will hear this and
ultimately decide on this not very clear issue. If they uphold Shelby's
ruling, then of course Herbert will go along with that. Hopefully they will
overturn it though, as that would be a great victory for State's rights.
For me this case is more about state's rights and defending the will of the
people in a state when it comes to issues that the federal government
constitutionally has no power over than it is about same sex marriage.

So, Governor Herbert admits that he was caught by surprise by Judge
Shelby’s decision. The day the federal judge handed down his decision the
governor and his staff looked and acted like a bunch of Keystone Cops running
around the police station while it was burning down. It didn't have to be
this way. This case has been in federal court for more than a year. If the
governor didn't trust the AG's office under the direction of now
former AG John Swallow to give him good advice then he should have hired outside
counsel months ago which is what Utah is belatedly doing now. All of this could
have and should have been anticipated. Herbert and his staff should have laid
out the options long before the federal judge ruled. Case in history from a
real leader: During the Battle of the Bulge in WW II when the 101st Airborne was
surrounded at Bastogne and needed rescue, Eisenhower summoned all the allied
commanders to a meeting including General Patton. Continued...

Continued.....Patton, being the remarkable leader that he was, anticipated what
the meeting was about and what Eisenhower would want so Patton had his staff
draw up three contingency plans for the rescue of the 101st at Bastogne. When
the meeting of the Allied commanders convened, Eisenhower explained the dire
situation of the 101st and asked for ideas. Patton offered that he could swing
his Third Army around from their position in the south and go on an
unprecedented military march in one of the worst European winters in decades and
be at Bastogne within 48 hours. All jaws dropped including Eisenhower's.
When asked how that was possible Patton simply said that he had already ordered
his staff to develop plans and they had already commenced swinging the Third
Army into position. Patton was given the go ahead. When he left the meeting he
simply got on the phone and told his Chief of Staff, "Play ball". This
maneuver and the rescue of the 101st is considered one of the greatest military
achievements of WW II of which there were many. It is too bad Herbert does not
possess these leadership skills.

"Next to dictatorship"? Nice hyperbole. Where did he pick that up, glenn
beck? Anyway, the reality is closer to what the Virginia attorney general said
yesterday. He pointed out that that state wouldn't enforce any anti same
sex marriage laws because the state needed to be on the correct side of the law.
Good for him. The dictatorship I fear is a Utah legislature and majority.

Governor Herbert is out of step with common sense and should be making decisions
based on civil rights, not religious rules. Freedom of religion is an
inalienable right, not an alienable one, some people seem to forget that.
People of many faiths can practice the rules within their religion as long as
they don't force them on others outside their religion. Not all of Utah
citizens are Mormon and should not be forced to adhere to the Mormon faith.

This is an important fight for religious freedom too. The SSM issue is being
used right now to bash conservatives in politics. It is fundamentally based on
the lie that those that support traditional marriage hate gay people. That is
not true. Those that support traditional marriage and conservative principles
believe that engaging in homosexual activity is immoral and that people will be
happier if they are humble and live the commandments. It is not taught and
promoted because we hate gay people. The Savior doesn't hate anybody but
he also set forth his moral standards and commandments.

"Herbert needs to be careful with his 'will of the people'
doctrine. Remember, there was a time when the will of the people of Missouri was
that all LDS church members be exterminated."

That wasn't
the will of the people of Missouri. It was the will of just one person,
Boggs.

"Something wrong here ,Its pretty sad that an attorney,
trained in constitutional principles, cannot comprehend the place of equality in
our (secular) country."

Utah has equality re marriage. All
people can marry i.e., one man/one woman. Applies equally to all citizens.
Allowing SSM would introduce inequality in state law. There are many other
loving relationships that would not be included such as polygamy, mother/son,
father/daughter, and you name it.

"Mr Gov: What is it about Equal
Protection under Law that you fail to understand?"

See above
comment.

"Was that law actually ever officially removed from the
books?"

No. The law is still on the books. The Gov should never
have allowed those gay marriages because they are against state law.

"If not, does that mean Gov. Herbert thinks it should still be being
enforced?"

What Herbert calls a "next step to dictatorship" in California is and
always has been common practice in Utah, and is not a step to dictatorship.
States always "pick and choose" which laws to enforce, as does every
prosecutor. An obvious example is Utah's forceful anti-polygamy statutes,
which haven't been enforced for decades. Why doesn't Herbert
"enforce" that law of Utah? (This is called "irony.")

I think the governor is right to see something unsettling going on when
officials make a decision on their own authority to simply ignore or even combat
democratically approved laws. It demonstrates how much more important opinion is
than law in our society. Of course opinion should be able to change law, but
only through due process and not at the whim of the elite few!

Would he have made the same comment about needing to support the "will of
the people" if it were the '50s and he were defending segregation or
miscegenation laws? "The people" don't have carte blanc to do as
they like regardless of constitutional strictures.

The citizens of Utah decided at the ballot box to define what marriage is and
the Supreme Court upheld that States can decide on the definition of
marriage.

The citizens of Utah can change the definition of marriage
to include SSM and other forms of marriage. That is the beauty of a
Representative Republic! Those who want SSM to be included in the State of
Utah's definition of marriage can gather the required number of signatures
to bring another Amendment proposal on the definition of marriage to the ballot
box.

The codification of religious notions into civil law when the notions do not
affect the rights and freedoms of American citizens, is a precursor of
dictatorship of a sort not desired by the general population of America.

Despite the fact that most Americans dislike the Gay lifestyle, those
same Americans, religious or non, would not want a theocratic government. The
reason for fearing religious encroachment into civil government is the extreme
motivation that religious people have to bring people into their fold. If I was
a religious person, I'm sure that I would want to spread the word to every
other person in the world.

"I think the governor is right to see something unsettling going on when
officials make a decision on their own authority to simply ignore or even combat
democratically approved laws. It demonstrates how much more important opinion is
than law in our society. "

----------

Actually, it
really demonstrates how much more important the constitution is than any law
that goes against it.

Read the 14th Amendment. Read the 9th
Amendment. Read the Supremacy Clause. Read the Full Faith and Credit
Clause---oh just read the whole thing. Then read the Federalist Papers. Then
Loving v. Virginia. Followed by the Prop 8 trial transcripts.

Anyone who has done so understands that the constitution insures that the
majority cannot vote to take away rights or privileges of the minority that they
themselves are enjoying. The constitution rules over the states and the laws
that the states pass must comply with the constitution. The states are required
to give full faith and credit to the acts, records and judicial proceeding of
the other states. Not all rights are listed in the contitution, but the people
still have them. And finally, the law cannot treat simularily situated citizens
differently. Equality under the law.